Randall Gellens <randy(_at_)Qualcomm(_dot_)Com> writes:
At 12:23 PM -0400 5/3/00, Gregory Sereda wrote:
... and never send the same message to someone twice unless the :days
specified in the vacation message has been exceeded.
I like it.
It strikes me that this is duplicating requirements more clearly and
completely stated elsewhere in this document. I don't think the text on
how to do it was clear, though.
If a sieve script changes, implementations MAY reset the records
of who has been responded to and when they have been responded
to. Alternatively, implementations can store records of who has
received which message, perhaps by storing a hash of the message
and the recipient.
I'm pretty sure I can add more words there, but I'm not sure it would
help. I don't know that it's worth specifying the algorithm, but
perhaps it is.
Is this an improvement?